Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[juliann]

12 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

True, but a group of men holding the priesthood could not hold a sacrament meeting without the presence of the bishop or his designee in the case of his absence. Nor could they conduct any other ordinance or function in any official capacity without the permission of the key holder. 

And how does that make one whit of difference to the underlying fact? The church can continue without one woman present while women wouldn't even be able to hold a sacrament meeting without a man. There is no getting past that. 

[kimpearson]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So what you are saying is that if I don't agree with you on how this should be handled, it sends a strong message that this talk is not that big of a deal to me?  That seems like you think you are the standard that everyone else should use to measure whether our reacts are acceptable or not.  

Am I misunderstanding you?   

You can disagree with me.  Who am I?  Nobody really.  I have no authority.  Nobody on this board even really cares who I am.  I am just stating "my feelings".  Your comments come across to me as downplaying the whole talk.  Just me no one else.  I am not any standard to hold up as the best or most righteous, it just my opinion.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

You can disagree with me.  Who am I?  Nobody really.  I have no authority.  Nobody on this board even really cares who I am.  I am just stating "my feelings".  Your comments come across to me as downplaying the whole talk.  Just me no one else.  I am not any standard to hold up as the best or most righteous, it just my opinion.

I think you may be confusing bluebell with someone else. And I say that as an exmormon critic. 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, kimpearson said:

You can disagree with me.  Who am I?  Nobody really.  I have no authority.  Nobody on this board even really cares who I am.  I am just stating "my feelings".  Your comments come across to me as downplaying the whole talk.  Just me no one else.  I am not any standard to hold up as the best or most righteous, it just my opinion.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  You come across pretty judgemental and accusatory for someone who doesn't believe his opinions are any better or righteous than those he disagrees with.

I think the talk is pretty bad, but I also don't think it's horrific by any means.  It's insensitive and hurtful and I think it teaches some shady/shoddy doctrine that is really problematic, but I don't think that Bro. Wilcox, in general, is a horrible person that needs to be made an example of. 

Thankfully, I am not in any position to have to deal with this whole mess--neither do I have the necessary knowledge to do so effective--so I have put zero effort into trying to decide what must happen to rectify the situation.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

let's start with Randy Bott

https://www.deseret.com/2012/2/29/20396723/lds-church-condemns-past-racism-inside-and-outside-the-church

The 2012 Washington Post article? In which Bott "cited scriptures, former church teachings and practices, speculating on possible reasons for a ban on ordaining people of black African descent to the LDS priesthood" (emphases added)? 

Immediately after which the Church "issued a press release in response to the Post article, saying that the reasons for the ban are not precisely known, and condemning racism in any form"?  And the Church thereafter "posted a page on 'Race and the Priesthood' on its official website that described the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood as a product of an 'American racial culture,' not 'divine disfavor'"?  

The "Race and the Priesthood" essay has been posted on the Church's website since, I believe, late 2013.  JK referenced "the teachings that create the 'image' in the first place," and "the teachings will persist," and "it all seems perfectly acceptable to teach those things."  All of of this is present and future tense.

Again: "I have spent my entire life in the Church.  I have encountered a few instances of members saying insensitive or even plainly inappropriate things pertaining to race.  But "teachings" would seem to be something that we could point to.  In the manuals, in General Conference talks, on the Church's website, etc."

So . . . CFR.  Where are these "teachings"?

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it's sad that 6 years earlier Pres. Hinckley denounced racism but did people listen?

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/background-information/president-gordon-b-hinckley-on-racial-intolerance

Yes, I think we have.

Meanwhile, I'm still looking for the "teachings" referenced by JK (and you).  You said "let's start with Randy Bott," but you then stopped with Randy Bott, and made no reference to any of the subsequent efforts by the Church.  Why is that?

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Now, President Nelson is denouncing racism in the Church but Brad Wilcox and now John Bytheway in his book didn't get the message

a 10 year old girl in Utah even killed herself because of she was "harassed because of her race and “disability.”

one wonders where these ideas come from to bully someone because of her race and disability, why didn't parents stop it? 

No, we aren't "wonder{ing}" that in this thread.  JK is attributing "these ideas" to the current and ongoing teachings of the Church.  Hence my CFR.

Here's what I think: Racism is one of the great evils of our day.  Alongside other great evils, such as physical/sexual abuse, substance abuse, licentiousness, dishonesty, and other vices and sins, racism has a presence amongst the members of the Church.  Unlike these other great evils, however, racism was previously propagated from the pulpits of the Church.  That is the plain and simple truth, and the Saints just have to lump it.  We must acknowledge that our spiritual (and often familial) ancestors, while admirable in many, many ways, nevertheless harbored sentiments about race and racism that we have, for many years now, understood to be quite wrong.  What was said of the Lamanites can also be said of us: "And it came to pass that the Lord began to bless them, insomuch that they brought many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, they did convince many of their sins, and of the traditions of their fathers, which were not correct."  (Alma 21:17.)

Here's what I also think: I think the leaders and the general membership of the Church have made significant progress in terms of addressing and overcoming racism.  Some of this is attributable to changes in broader society, but also to the clear and emphatic counsel we have been receiving from the Brethren for many, many years now.  And some of this is likely attributable to the cross-polination arising from missionary work.  It's hard to have or maintain resentments against people whom you serve, among whom you live and work, whose language and culture you study.  

Here's what I also also think: I think the critics and enemies of the Church are really not inclined to acknowledge the above.  Instead, we get vague allusions and allegations.  There will, for these folks, never be a time in which the Church has markedly improved itself and its members.  We are indelibly stained, forever.  No matter what we do and say, our critics will simply move the goalposts and say "Nope, still not good enough."  Forever and ever.

One of my favorite blogs has an ongoing "meme"-like commentary along the lines of "The demand for racism in America vastly exceeds the supply."  This line is used to introduce stories about hoaxes and such where allegations of racism are made and subsequently determined to be false or unlikely.  Some examples:

Quote

THE DEMAND FOR RACISM IN AMERICA FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY, DRAWING INFERIOR SUBSTITUTES INTO THE MARKET: Hoax alert: Black Illinois student criminally charged for racist notes. “Illinois law enforcement announced Friday that Kaliyeha Clark-Mabins, a black female college student, will be charged with three counts of disorderly conduct for filing a false police report. . . . The notes said ‘DIE ****’ and ‘BLACK PEOPLE DON’T BELONG’ according to charging documents provided to The Fix by the Madison County State’s Attorney office. . . . “The investigation included not just the campus police, but the “Madison County State’s Attorney’s Office and the U.S. Secret Service,” the email said. The investigation cleared two white students falsely accused of involvement, Amanda Jerome and Jimmi Thull.”

THE DEMAND FOR RACIAL HATE ON CAMPUS FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY, DRAWING IN INFERIOR IMITATIONS: Hate crime hoaxes: Students alleged KKK recruited on campus, vandalized black girl’s door.

THE LEFT’S DEMAND FOR HATE IN AMERICA VASTLY EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: Yet Another Hate Crime Hoax, This Time in Maryland.

THE DEMAND FOR RACISM IN AMERICA EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY, DRAWING IN LOW-QUALITY SUBSTITUTES: Howie Carr: About that UMass probe. . .

THE DEMAND FOR HATE CRIMES IN AMERICA FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: Jussie Smollett is part of a larger trend of fake hate crimes. ... As Roger Kimball wrote when Jussie Smollett’s story broke in 2019, “The less hate there is in the United States, the more hate crimes must be manufactured in order to keep the Fraternal Order of Victims afloat.”

THE DEMAND FOR WHITE SUPREMACY IN AMERICA FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: No charges for teens who put up fake KKK flyers at Florida State University. Putting up fake flyers isn’t a crime. Heck, putting up real KKK flyers isn’t a crime.

Related: “Again and again, we see the same response to fake hate from America’s hyper-progressive enclaves. This attack or abuse might not have been actually real, they say, but the incident speaks to a deeper, almost religious belief that racism lurks everywhere and itches to get out. It’s a form of moral theater in which participants must willingly suspend their disbelief. The awkward truth is that in modern America, as in other parts of the developed world, the demand for ‘acts of racism’ greatly exceeds the supply. So people have to manufacture their own.”

THE DEMAND FOR HATE CRIMES IN AMERICA FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: Hate Hoax: Black employee arrested over racist graffiti on Emory University building.

IN AMERICA, THE POLITICAL CLASS’S DEMAND FOR DANGEROUS EXTREMISTS EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: Scoop: Investigation finds fired Tennessee vaccine official mailed dog muzzle to self. “A Tennessee investigation found evidence that the state’s fired vaccine chief, Michelle Fiscus, purchased a dog muzzle that she previously claimed someone had mailed in an attempt to intimidate her. . . . Fiscus and her husband, Brad, had said in multiple interviews, including with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, that the muzzle was sent anonymously to her state office through Amazon shortly before her firing. ‘Someone wanted to send a message to tell her to stop talking, they thought it would be a threat to her,’ Brad Fiscus told the Tennessean. The Tennessee Department of Safety & Homeland Security found through a subpoena that the Amazon package containing the muzzle traced back to a credit card in Fiscus’ name, according to an investigation report obtained by Axios.”

THE DEMAND FOR HATE CRIMES IN AMERICA FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: Racism is now the new gold. Regarding the Colorado Rockies’ “Dinger” faux-hate crime, Jason Whitlock tells Tucker Carlson, “Racism is now the new gold and people mine for racism gold the same way they mined for gold in the 1840s and 1850s. We have to understand that the miners, in this desperate rush to get rich – take Patrice Cullors, the founder of Black Lives Matter — she plays the racial game with Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, any other dead man that she thinks has been unjustly killed resisting arrest – and she’s now bought four homes across America.”

THE DEMAND FOR HATE CRIMES IN AMERICA FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: Colorado Rockies Fan Accused Of Shouting Racial Slur At Marlins Player Was Yelling At Mascot ‘Dinger.’

THE DEMAND FOR WHITE SUPREMACY IN AMERICA FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: My Search for the Elusive White Nationalists and Supremacists in the Church.

The key takeaway is simple; not one person I talked to at the PK conference knew or had heard a Christian nationalist. Nary a one. Nor had they seen or come in contact with a white supremacist. To a person, regardless of ethnicity, they believed race relations in their church and their community broadly were better than they were ten, twenty, or thirty years ago, not worse. Also, these participants thought their church was doing a “good job” discussing race.

THE DEMAND FOR WHITE SUPREMACY IN TODAY’S AMERICA FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: Princeton U. to host vigil over ‘noose’ nobody knows anything about. “Several weeks ago at Penn State, two black university professors reported a ‘noose’ in the backyard of their home which they said was placed there ‘deliberately’ to ‘harass them.’ It turned out to be part of their neighbor’s swing set.”

THE DEMAND FOR HATE CRIMES IN AMERICA FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: Student charged with misdemeanor for residence hall fire in hate-crime hoax. “As The College Fix previously reported, the April 18 incident was the culmination of a series of incidents that ignited racial unrest at Viterbo University throughout the spring semester. . . . Unanka spoke at the university-endorsed walkout, which attracted hundreds of students and staff. A few weeks after Unanka was arrested, President Glena Temple said that the student responsible for the dormitory fire had been identified, however, refused to provide the person’s name. Simultaneously, Temple closed the internal investigation into campus racism vandalism and graffiti. Temple refused to fully connect the dots.”

THE DEMAND FOR WHITE SUPREMACY IN TODAY’S AMERICA FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY (CONT’D): Hate-crime hoax: Black student likely egged her own door, police say.

THE DEMAND FOR WHITE SUPREMACY IN AMERICA FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: Almost year-long investigations yield nothing in Johns Hopkins U. ‘noose’ case.

THE DEMAND FOR WHITE SUPREMACY IN AMERICA VASTLY EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY:  Smolletting in Huntington Beach, CA.

THE DEMAND FOR CAMPUS WHITE SUPREMACISTS VASTLY EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY, DRAWING IN INFERIOR SUBSTITUTES: Narrative shattered: ‘KKK,’ ‘White power’ graffiti on campus written by Black student.

As a result of the messages, hundreds of students boycotted class and marched on campus for three consecutive days.

Many chanted “silence is violence!”

THE DEMAND FOR RACIAL HATRED EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY, DRAWING INFERIOR SUBSTITUTES INTO THE MARKET: U. Minnesota student claims racial profiling, fear of being shot; recorded footage shreds narrative.

THE DEMAND FOR RACIAL HATE CRIMES EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: Police, federal law enforcement find no evidence biracial Madison woman was attacked. “There had been questions about the veracity of the woman’s report because, unlike in other crimes that occur Downtown, police never released video stills of the incident or possible suspects in attempt to find the perpetrators. Very little of the public parts of Downtown are hidden from dozens of city-owned cameras and other private surveillance cameras police have access to.”

IN 2020 AMERICA, THE DEMAND FOR HATE CRIMES FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: Police say Texas A&M student who found racist notes on his car put them there.

THE DEMAND FOR HATE IN AMERICA FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: ‘Nooses’ In Oakland Park Were Exercise Aids, Man Says:

The Police Department provided five photographs of trees, some of which showed knotted ropes and one that appeared to have a piece of plastic pipe attached to a rope, hanging from tree limbs.

They have been removed by city officials.

Victor Sengbe, who is black, told KGO-TV that the ropes were part of a rigging that he and his friends used as part of a larger swing system. He also shared video of the swing in use.

“Out of the dozen and hundreds and thousands of people that walked by, no one has thought that it looked anywhere close to a noose. Folks have used it for exercise. It was really a fun addition to the park that we tried to create,” Sengbe said.

ANALYSIS: TRUE. The demand for white supremacists vastly exceeds the supply.

THE DEMAND FOR HATE IN AMERICA FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: Facebook friends each reported nooses at different colleges. One was a damaged power cable.

DEMAND FOR HATE CRIMES FAR EXCEEDS THE SUPPLY: If America Is A Racist Country, Why Do People Have To Constantly Invent Fake Hate Crimes?

AMERICA IN THE 21ST CENTURY: ‘The demand for bigots exceeds the supply.’

IF IT WEREN’T FOR FAKE HATE CRIMES, HOW MANY HATE CRIMES WOULD THERE BE? Black college lacrosse player, 21, is arrested for spraying N-word and swastika graffiti targeting HIMSELF and other minority students in two incidents that terrorized the campus.

I think we sort of have a microcosmic corollary of this phenomenon as pertaining to the Church and its critics.  The critics really really want to paint the Church and its members as horrible, ugly, persistently and incorrigibly racist.  But that's becoming harder to do as the Church and its members improve and grow and mature.  

That's not to say that there are no problems with racism in the Church.  There are, and we still have plenty of room to improve and mature even more than we already have.  My point, though, is that our critics will never, ever grant that "we already have" improved.  My sense is that our critics demand for racism and hatred in the Church far exceeds the actual supply of such noxious things.

I could be wrong of course.  Hence my CFR.  Where are the ongoing "teachings" that are contemporary with, and conflicting and contradictory to, the "Race and the Priesthood" essay, Pres. Hinckley's counsel, Pres. Nelson's counsel, etc.?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The 2012 Washington Post article? In which Bott "cited scriptures, former church teachings and practices, speculating on possible reasons for a ban on ordaining people of black African descent to the LDS priesthood" (emphases added)? 

Immediately after which the Church "issued a press release in response to the Post article, saying that the reasons for the ban are not precisely known, and condemning racism in any form"?  And the Church thereafter "posted a page on 'Race and the Priesthood' on its official website that described the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood as a product of an 'American racial culture,' not 'divine disfavor'"?  

The "Race and the Priesthood" essay has been posted on the Church's website since, I believe, late 2013.  JK referenced "the teachings that create the 'image' in the first place," and "the teachings will persist," and "it all seems perfectly acceptable to teach those things."  All of of this is present and future tense.

Again: "I have spent my entire life in the Church.  I have encountered a few instances of members saying insensitive or even plainly inappropriate things pertaining to race.  But "teachings" would seem to be something that we could point to.  In the manuals, in General Conference talks, on the Church's website, etc."

So . . . CFR.  Where are these "teachings"?

You are making an obvious and artificial restriction on what constitutes 'teachings' for the sole purpose of winning in your defense, and that's not good faith discussion.

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's what I think: Racism is one of the great evils of our day.  Alongside other great evils, such as physical/sexual abuse, substance abuse, licentiousness, dishonesty, and other vices and sins, racism has a presence amongst the members of the Church.  Unlike these other great evils, however, racism was previously propagated from the pulpits of the Church.  That is the plain and simple truth, and the Saints just have to lump it.  We must acknowledge that our spiritual (and often familial) ancestors, while admirable in many, many ways, nevertheless harbored sentiments about race and racism that we have, for many years now, understood to be quite wrong.  What was said of the Lamanites can also be said of us: "And it came to pass that the Lord began to bless them, insomuch that they brought many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, they did convince many of their sins, and of the traditions of their fathers, which were not correct."  (Alma 21:17.)

You are grossly underestimating the staying power of these past teachings.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You are making an obvious and artificial restriction on what constitutes 'teachings' for the sole purpose of winning in your defense, and that's not good faith discussion.

Well, please educate me.  What is your understanding of "what constitutes 'teachings'" in this context?  What examples can you provide of these "teachings"?

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

Here's what I think: Racism is one of the great evils of our day.  Alongside other great evils, such as physical/sexual abuse, substance abuse, licentiousness, dishonesty, and other vices and sins, racism has a presence amongst the members of the Church.  Unlike these other great evils, however, racism was previously propagated from the pulpits of the Church.  That is the plain and simple truth, and the Saints just have to lump it.  We must acknowledge that our spiritual (and often familial) ancestors, while admirable in many, many ways, nevertheless harbored sentiments about race and racism that we have, for many years now, understood to be quite wrong.  What was said of the Lamanites can also be said of us: "And it came to pass that the Lord began to bless them, insomuch that they brought many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, they did convince many of their sins, and of the traditions of their fathers, which were not correct."  (Alma 21:17.)

You are grossly underestimating the staying power of these past teachings.

How so?  Anecdotally, my family and circle of friends have all been uniformly disappointed and frustrated in the tone, tenor and content of Bro. Wilcox's remarks.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 11, 2022 by smac97

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They are trying to make the argument that picking someone just because of their race is no different than not picking someone just because of their race.   And they are probably mimicking those who are saying things like--

It's a sentiment that I'm hearing a lot of in some circles:

It's just a way to complain about Biden.  If Trump did it these people wouldn't make a peep about it.

Thanks, yes I've been reading up on it. It's sad that my in laws won't look at things from a different perspective. Why even Pres Ronald Reagan did the same thing when he said he would pick the best female candidate for the supreme court and it was Sandra Day O'Connor. If he hadn't who knows how long it could have taken for a woman to be nominated, and IMO if Biden didn't find the best African American, again who knows how long it might take. And the next president can do the same with other races. We need to make diversity happen. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Well, please educate me.  What is your understanding of "what constitutes 'teachings'" in this context?  What examples can you provide of these "teachings"?

How so?

Thanks,

-Smac

You have acknowledged that racism was institutionalized over the pulpit in the somewhat distant past.  Like it or not, those were 'teachings.' While the Church has attempted to repudiate some or all of those past teachings, they persist in their power. There are clearly people, even a certain General Officer, who cling to the past and continue to pass along these things.  It takes only a few minutes on the Internet to find members of the Church still referring back to Brigham Young, et al and their teachings on race to justify ongoing racism. I've seen it in practice in wards and stakes throughout the country. It may be a proverbial 'dark underbelly' of the culture, but it is rooted in verifiable past teachings of Church leaders. That is undeniable. The real debate should be whether the Church has done enough to repudiate those past teachings, not whether they occurred. Naturally, what constitutes 'enough' is a matter of opinion, but the path you're going down is a dead end.

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, Moneymaking said:

I’m betting they believe he is picking a black woman first and foremost because she is black. I’m thinking if he has made up his mind the new justice has to be black then the motive for the pick is based on race. Don’t know if that is racist or not but if he said he was only picking a white person it definitely would be considered racist. 

Please read my recent response to bluebell. And hopefully I'm not derailing 

[Duncan]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, I'm still looking for the "teachings" referenced by JK (and you).  You said "let's start with Randy Bott," but you then stopped with Randy Bott, and made no reference to any of the subsequent efforts by the Church.  Why is that?

so you didn't read the part I wrote about Ayla and Dennis Horne and Brad Wilcox and John Bytheway? why did you stop reading after Randy Bott?

have you forgotten about Deznat? you even brought them up and the Church, as far I know, hasn't said anything about them. ALL these people and groups use church teachings to promote their lunacy. 

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hence my CFR.  Where are the ongoing "teachings" that are contemporary with, and conflicting and contradictory to, the "Race and the Priesthood" essay, Pres. Hinckley's counsel, Pres. Nelson's counsel, etc.?

Randy Bott was stopped but what about Wilcox, Horne, Ayla, Deznat, Bytheway, they are continuing and who knows who else is out there, even not these personalities in the church. It could be the average member who says racist stuff or whatever. I could also, like you, cite examples, I've heard in the church of racism but people seem to think that others are racist and they need to change but not me, they lack self awareness. I just wonder how many times the church has to put out a statement about racism, it happened with Ayla, it happened with Bott, it happened with the past three Presidents of the Church, why does it continue to happen? Even the message that Elder Bednar put out this week never mentioned anything about African-Americans, it was just about people of other faith traditions. I think the Church needs to send a stronger message otherwise it will just be another Brad Wilcox situation and who knows who it could be then, a General Authority? 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Duncan

[smac97]

Just now, ttribe said:

You have acknowledged that racism was institutionalized over the pulpit in the somewhat distant past. 

And even in the not-so-distant past.  Various racist justifications for the Priesthood Ban existed in my lifetime.

Just now, ttribe said:

Like it or not, those were 'teachings.'

I acknowledge that.  But again:

Quote

The "Race and the Priesthood" essay has been posted on the Church's website since, I believe, late 2013.  JK referenced "the teachings that create the 'image' in the first place," and "the teachings will persist," and "it all seems perfectly acceptable to teach those things."  All of of this is present and future tense.

Again: "I have spent my entire life in the Church.  I have encountered a few instances of members saying insensitive or even plainly inappropriate things pertaining to race.  But "teachings" would seem to be something that we could point to.  In the manuals, in General Conference talks, on the Church's website, etc."

So . . . CFR.  Where are these "teachings"?

Well?

Just now, ttribe said:

While the Church has attempted to repudiate some or all of those past teachings, they persist in their power.

Again:

Quote

Here's what I also also think: I think the critics and enemies of the Church are really not inclined to acknowledge the above.  Instead, we get vague allusions and allegations.  There will, for these folks, never be a time in which the Church has markedly improved itself and its members.  We are indelibly stained, forever.  No matter what we do and say, our critics will simply move the goalposts and say "Nope, still not good enough."  Forever and ever.

What does "they persist in their power" mean?  And what evidence do you have of this?  

You said "let's start with Randy Bott," but you then stopped with Randy Bott, and made no reference to any of the subsequent efforts by the Church or the Church's current and ongoing teachings that are congruent with the "Race and the Priesthood Essay," with Pres. Hinckley's and Pres. Nelson's remarks expressly condemning racism, and so on.

Again, where are the ongoing "teachings," referenced by both JK and you, that are contemporary with, and conflicting and contradictory to, the "Race and the Priesthood" essay, Pres. Hinckley's counsel, Pres. Nelson's counsel, etc.?

Just now, ttribe said:

There are clearly people, even a certain General Officer, who cling to the past and continue to pass along these things. 

Such as?  

Just now, ttribe said:

It takes only a few minutes on the Internet to find members of the Church still referring back to Brigham Young, et al and their teachings on race to justify ongoing racism.

How are online comments reasonably categorized as "teachings" in the Church?

Please don't equivocate.  Again:

Quote

The "Race and the Priesthood" essay has been posted on the Church's website since, I believe, late 2013.  JK referenced "the teachings that create the 'image' in the first place," and "the teachings will persist," and "it all seems perfectly acceptable to teach those things."  All of of this is present and future tense.

Again: "I have spent my entire life in the Church.  I have encountered a few instances of members saying insensitive or even plainly inappropriate things pertaining to race.  But "teachings" would seem to be something that we could point to.  In the manuals, in General Conference talks, on the Church's website, etc."

So . . . CFR.  Where are these "teachings"?

Well?

Just now, ttribe said:

I've seen it in practice in wards and stakes throughout the country.  It may be a proverbial 'dark underbelly' of the culture, but it is rooted in verifiable past teachings of Church leaders.  That is undeniable.

Convenient, that.  Nicely vague and unexplaned, and utterly unsubstantiated, anecdotes based purely on the say-so of an anonymous critic.  That's hardly the response to a CFR I was hoping to get.

Sorry, I'm pretty skeptical.  We are far from perfect, and have plenty of room to go.  But I just don't buy the characterization of the Saints as broadly incorrigible racists who are ignoring the Church's counsel in the "Race and the Priesthood Essay," from Pres. Hinckley, from Pres. Nelson, etc., and who have made no appreciable progress in improving ourselves and overcoming this great wrong.

Just now, ttribe said:

The real debate should be whether the Church has done enough to repudiate those past teachings, not whether they occurred.

What on earth are you talking about.  Nobody is "debat{ing} ... whether {past racist teachings} occurred."

Just now, ttribe said:

Naturally, what constitutes 'enough' is a matter of opinion, but the path you're going down is a dead end.

What "path" is that?

For me, my path is illuminated by the counsel of living prophets and apostles.  By the "Race and the Priesthood" essay, and so on.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

He's just saying what he's been taught. The church can't have not known what he's taught at these youth firesides all these years. It's time for the church to tell the truth of what it truly believes. That Cain killed Abel and cursed him with dark skin. They haven't flat out denied this have they? They are afraid to say the prophets were wrong or still believe the narrative from the beginning. They only mention Brigham Young. Why would so many prophets not get the memo either.

So you are claiming that this is official LDS Church doctrine?   "...time for the church to tell the truth of what it truly believes. That Cain killed Abel and cursed him with dark skin."  CFR, Tacenda.  It is certainly not official Church doctrine.  You keep mentioning "they," but it is unclear who "they" is.  Are you referring to the Brethren generally, or to some specific person?  Bear in mind that in 1978 Elder McConkie told us all to forget whatever he and Brigham had said on the matter because they spoke without light and knowledge.  He and Brigham had spoken for the racist wing of the LDS Church, and had been strongly opposed by Orson Pratt, David O. McKay, and others.  Spencer Kimball and others obviously did not buy that nonsense.  So who is "they"?

Edited February 11, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

so you didn't read the part I wrote about Ayla and Dennis Horne and Brad Wilcox and John Bytheway? why did you stop reading after Randy Bott?

I did not.  Did you add it?

Anyway, here's what you said:

Quote

let's continue with disgusting Dennis Horne, who changed the word "negroes" to "Africans" in a blog post post dated from last year

https://www.truthwillprevail.xyz/2021/02/apostles-prophets-and-gods-former.html

I have never heard of Dennis Horne.  

Are you suggesting that his personal blog is reasonably characterized as "teachings" in the Church?

Quote

a poster from here pointed it out and he changed it

http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2021/02/question-for-dennis-b-horne.html

all kinds of teachings in Dennis' vomit inducing piece

Robert's comments are, in my view, far more indicative of the perspective of the Saints as to matters of race as compared to Horne's rhetoric.

So far the effort to paint the Church as propagating racist teachings is . . . not going well.

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

have you forgotten about Deznat?

Nope.  I have, instead, addressed DezNat extensively on this very board:

• September 2019: DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism?
• December 2020: DezNat (Deseret Nation) = White Nationalism? - Part 2
• November 2020: Fair Mormon's new YouTube branding strategy
• April 2020: Deznat (deseret nation) = White nationalism? - Part 3
• June 2021: Deznat (deseret nation) = White nationalism? - Part 4
• July 2021: Alaska Assistant Attorney General in "DezNat" Trouble
• December 2021: DezNat in the News Again

How are the rants of anonymous yahoos online characterized as "teachings" in the Church?

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

you even brought them up and the Church, as far I know, hasn't said anything about them.

Utterly false.  Demonstrably and patently untrue.  The Church has repeatedly and emphatically condemned racism, extremism, incivility, and all the other ugly attributes of DezNat.    

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Randy Bott was stopped but what about Wilcox, Horne, Ayla, Deznat, Bytheway, they are continuing and who knows who else is out there, even not these personalities in the church.

You are getting pretty far afield.  Again:

Quote

The "Race and the Priesthood" essay has been posted on the Church's website since, I believe, late 2013.  JK referenced "the teachings that create the 'image' in the first place," and "the teachings will persist," and "it all seems perfectly acceptable to teach those things."  All of of this is present and future tense.

Again: "I have spent my entire life in the Church.  I have encountered a few instances of members saying insensitive or even plainly inappropriate things pertaining to race.  But "teachings" would seem to be something that we could point to.  In the manuals, in General Conference talks, on the Church's website, etc."

So . . . CFR.  Where are these "teachings"?

Bro. Wilcox was speaking from the pulpit, in the capacity of his calling as a General Officer of the Church, so his comments are certainly fair game.

Here's what John Bytheway said:

Not seeing "racism" here.

The Hornes are writing on a blog.  They seem quite obscure.  Rather difficult to attribute their comments to the Church's current "teachings" about racism.

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

It could be the average member who says racist stuff or whatever.

What does this mean?

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I could also, like you, cite examples, I've heard in the church of racism but people seem to think that others are racist and they need to change but not me, they lack self awareness.

Again, you are going pretty far afield.  I'm not looking for absolution from you (or from me).  I am instead asking, many times over, for references that the Church is propagating racism in its current/ongoing teachings.  That was the CFR.

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I just wonder how many times the church has to put out a statement about racism, it happened with Ayla, it happened with Bott, it happened with the past three Presidents of the Church, why does it continue to happen?

Perhaps for the same reason that the Brethren and the Church constantly teach us to obey the Law of Chastity?  To avoid pornography?  To abstain from any abusive behavior?  To keep the Word of Wisdom?

That reason being . . . the Saints are flawed and succumb to these flaws, and hence need ongoing correction and counsel.

But here's the thing: The Church is not being accused of encouraging its members to commit fornication and adultery, to consume pornography, to abuse each other, to violate the Word of Wisdom, etc.  But the Church is being accused, by you and JK, of propagating teachings advancing racism.  

Hence my CFR.

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Even the message that Elder Bednar put out this week never mentioned anything about African-Americans, it was just about people of other faith traditions.

What?  Elder Bednar not mentioning African-Americans in one message = propagating teachings advancing racism?

Again, the effort to paint the Church as propagating racist teachings is . . . not going well.

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I think the Church needs to send a stronger message otherwise it will just be another Brad Wilcox situation and who knows who it could be then, a General Authority? 

You are spot-on in demonstrating my previous point:

Quote

Here's what I also also think: I think the critics and enemies of the Church are really not inclined to acknowledge the above.  Instead, we get vague allusions and allegations.  There will, for these folks, never be a time in which the Church has markedly improved itself and its members.  We are indelibly stained, forever.  No matter what we do and say, our critics will simply move the goalposts and say "Nope, still not good enough."  Forever and ever.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And even in the not-so-distant past.  Various racist justifications for the Priesthood Ban existed in my lifetime.

I acknowledge that.  But again:

Well?

That was my point, Spencer. People are still using old teachings that the Church, itself, no longer uses and has in fact repudiated.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What does "they persist in their power" mean?  And what evidence do you have of this?  

Persist in the sense that there are many members (hopefully, a small portion of the total) who still believe and cling to the teachings of Brigham Young and others (through McConkie, let's say) on race, regardless of what President Hinckley said in 2013.

The evidence is two-fold: 1) anecdotal, but I'm hardly alone; and 2), what just happened this last weekend with Bradley Wilcox.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You said "let's start with Randy Bott," but you then stopped with Randy Bott, and made no reference to any of the subsequent efforts by the Church or the Church's current and ongoing teachings that are congruent with the "Race and the Priesthood Essay," with Pres. Hinckley's and Pres. Nelson's remarks expressly condemning racism, and so on.

I didn't say that, Duncan did.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How are online comments reasonably categorized as "teachings" in the Church?

Please don't equivocate.  Again:

Well?

 

I'm not equivocating and I didn't say those should be categorized as "teachings," I said they are evidence that old teachings are still being used to justify ongoing racism amongst some members of the Church.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Convenient, that.  Nicely vague and unexplaned, and utterly unsubstantiated, anecdotes based purely on the say-so of an anonymous critic.  That's hardly the response to a CFR I was hoping to get.

Yeah, you're right. I and others who have witnessed such behavior are just liars. Way to poison that well, Spencer.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sorry, I'm pretty skeptical.  We are far from perfect, and have plenty of room to go.  But I just don't buy the characterization of the Saints as broadly incorrigible racists who are ignoring the Church's counsel in the "Race and the Priesthood Essay," from Pres. Hinckley, from Pres. Nelson, etc., and who have made no appreciable progress in improving ourselves and overcoming this great wrong.

I didn't say that. I don't think anyone else in here said that. That's your inference from anyone (apparently) pointing out that racism does still exist amongst the membership of the Church and that it is rooted in past teachings of leaders of the Church.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What on earth are you talking about.  Nobody is "debat{ing} ... whether {past racist teachings} occurred."

Well, when you keep trying to draw the line at current manuals, etc., and keep ignoring that people can and do rely on past teachings to justify their current racism, then it looks like you are debating that.

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What "path" is that?

For me, my path is illuminated by the counsel of living prophets and apostles.  By the "Race and the Priesthood" essay, and so on. 

Oh, good grief, don't be so obtuse. The path I'm referring to is your argument that the Church doesn't currently teach anything racist, so the past teachings don't matter.

Edited February 11, 2022 by ttribe

[Duncan]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you suggesting that his personal blog is reasonably characterized as "teachings" in the Church?

he would say so! I think he's delusional but he gets it from somewhere

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Utterly false.  Demonstrably and patently untrue.  The Church has repeatedly and emphatically condemned racism, extremism, incivility, and all the other ugly attributes of DezNat.    

and yet here we are and the Church saying nothing. Very telling. I hope they get rid of Brad and it sends a message that overcoming racism is more important than what Brad and others are saying. otherwise the Church is talking out of the side of it's mouth

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What does this mean?

that the non General officer member of the Church says racist things in Church that you claim to hear on occasion

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So far the effort to paint the Church as propagating racist teachings is . . . not going well.

and your attempt to minimize racism isn't going well either

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That reason being . . . the Saints are flawed and succumb to these flaws, and hence need ongoing correction and counsel.

show me this in relation to Brad Wilcox

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What?  Elder Bednar not mentioning African-Americans in one message = propagating teachings advancing racism?

Again, the effort to paint the Church as propagating racist teachings is . . . not going well.

yeah, he didn't say a word about the nonsense about African-Americans, does that mean he agrees with it? Why didn't he say anything against it? 

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There will, for these folks, never be a time in which the Church has markedly improved itself and its members.  We are indelibly stained, forever.  No matter what we do and say, our critics will simply move the goalposts and say "Nope, still not good enough."  Forever and ever.

as long as people such as yourself, Brad Wilcox, et al lack self awareness and pretend it doesn't exist this problem of racism will continue and the church is it's own worst enemy.

 

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not seeing "racism" here.

The Hornes are writing on a blog.  They seem quite obscure.  Rather difficult to attribute their comments to the Church's current "teachings" about racism.

first of all it isn't correct, the Book of Mormon ends in 400 or so, Moroni held the Priesthood didn't he?  If you don't see racism there then I can't help you. Talk to "the Hornes" to see if they would agree with you about the correctness of their viewpoints. As long as people like you say that racism is bad or as bad then it will continue to exist and it's hard to believe these statements from the presiding brethren when a chance is given them to actually correct someone that they picked (aren't these people vetted at all?) the do nothing , actions speak louder than words. I hope they release Brad and like Randy Bott we never hear of him again and that his supporters actually repent and become a disciple of Christ like Pres. Hinckley wanted.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Duncan

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not seeing "racism" here.

I think that is part of the problem in this particular conversation. Comparing the priesthood restriction that only applied to Black Church members of African descent to the Levitic Priesthood is problematic and racist IMO. You disagree. Until that’s worked out I doubt you will find any common ground with Duncan or TTribe on this one. Was glad to see that the church gave zero space to spurious reasoning like this in their essay. 

[Nofear]

Oh, that we were giving the talks like those in the Journal of Discourses where our doctrine was pristine and uncluttered with error.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And even in the not-so-distant past.  Various racist justifications for the Priesthood Ban existed in my lifetime.

I acknowledge that.  But again:

Well?

Again:

What does "they persist in their power" mean?  And what evidence do you have of this?  

You said "let's start with Randy Bott," but you then stopped with Randy Bott, and made no reference to any of the subsequent efforts by the Church or the Church's current and ongoing teachings that are congruent with the "Race and the Priesthood Essay," with Pres. Hinckley's and Pres. Nelson's remarks expressly condemning racism, and so on.

Again, where are the ongoing "teachings," referenced by both JK and you, that are contemporary with, and conflicting and contradictory to, the "Race and the Priesthood" essay, Pres. Hinckley's counsel, Pres. Nelson's counsel, etc.?

Such as?  

How are online comments reasonably categorized as "teachings" in the Church?

Please don't equivocate.  Again:

Well?

Convenient, that.  Nicely vague and unexplaned, and utterly unsubstantiated, anecdotes based purely on the say-so of an anonymous critic.  That's hardly the response to a CFR I was hoping to get.

Sorry, I'm pretty skeptical.  We are far from perfect, and have plenty of room to go.  But I just don't buy the characterization of the Saints as broadly incorrigible racists who are ignoring the Church's counsel in the "Race and the Priesthood Essay," from Pres. Hinckley, from Pres. Nelson, etc., and who have made no appreciable progress in improving ourselves and overcoming this great wrong.

What on earth are you talking about.  Nobody is "debat{ing} ... whether {past racist teachings} occurred."

What "path" is that?

For me, my path is illuminated by the counsel of living prophets and apostles.  By the "Race and the Priesthood" essay, and so on.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I find it impossible to believe that you are unaware of racist teachings within the church. You calling them "justifications" as opposed to teachings is comical. I don't believe you are communicating in good faith here. You seem intent on obfuscation and semantic games.

The church even disavows "previous racist teachings" yet you can't seem to accept there were racist teachings. Maybe you need to take 5 minutes and research this topic a little bit. 

[Buckeye]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm with my in laws on vacation and they were discussing how racist it is for Biden to say he's picking a black woman as a candidate for the supreme court. I don't understand it. Am I going crazy?😩

Limiting a court appointment based on race and sex is by definition racist and sexist. It’s also the right thing to do. There are way more qualified people for the appointment than slots on the court. Since the court is to represent the American people it is reasonable to select justices that match our national demographics.
 

There has never been a black female justice. There have been lots and lots of white males, including many who Biden voted to sustain. So obviously Biden isn’t prejudiced against his own race and sex.
 

Since there are many qualified black female candidates, it is good to select one of them - thereby getting not only a qualified judge but a better reflection of the citizenry the court serves. The court’s legitimacy is enhanced by having a representative group of judges. 
 

Also, Trump expressly limited his last court pick to women. Was he sexist? Yes, but unlike his base sexism that is appalling, that  limited sexism was appropriate under the circumstances. 

Edited February 11, 2022 by Buckeye

[Duncan]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They seem quite obscure

by the way you say that you have never heard of Dennis Horne but also that they "seem obscure" how do you know that if you have never heard of him before? I think he's completely delusional and I hope his ideas never go anywhere

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church even disavows "previous racist teachings" yet you can't seem to accept there were racist teachings. Maybe you need to take 5 minutes and research this topic a little bit.

I think this nails the problem. The church condemns “racism” but provides no examples. Few people think they themselves might be racist, so the church is obviously condemning someone or something else. 

[smac97]

Just now, Duncan said:

Quote

They seem quite obscure

by the way you say that you have never heard of Dennis Horne

Correct.  I have never heard of him.  And he appears to be speaking in his individual capacity.  

Just now, Duncan said:

but also that they "seem obscure" how do you know that if you have never heard of him before?

I don't know, hence my use of the phrase "seem quite obscure."

Just now, Duncan said:

I think he's completely delusional and I hope his ideas never go anywhere

That's fine.  He has a little bio on Deseret Book:

Quote

Dennis is the author of several doctrinally and historically oriented books, including Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights from His Life and Teachings; Called of God by Prophecy; An Apostles Record: The Journals of Abraham H. Cannon; Determining Doctrine; and Faith to Heal and Be Healed,

Are any of his ideas which you find to be reprehensible in these materials?

Thanks,

-Smac

[James 1 5]

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

Power is:

1. The ability to exert influence over others that doesn't necessarily involve their best interest or without their cooperation.

That's why we should want good people to be the ones with power, rather than the alternative.  But even a good ruler would need to punish people for bad behavior and those being punished would likely not like being punished.

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

2. The capability or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others in ways that they may not desire.

A good ruler will reward good behavior and punish or limit other people's power for bad behavior.

19 hours ago, Navidad said:

3. Power is the ability to do or have your own way over other human beings in a way they are helpless to defend against.

Which is good if the Way is a good way and the best way, even if others don't desire to do things in that Way.

 

And just think about this for a minute.  Do you really believe our Lord Jesus Christ has no power to rule over others, nor should he have?  He does have power.  More power than most people realize.

[Duncan]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Correct.  I have never heard of him.  And he appears to be speaking in his individual capacity.  

I don't know, hence my use of the phrase "seem quite obscure."

That's fine.  He has a little bio on Deseret Book:

Are any of his ideas which you find to be reprehensible in these materials?

Thanks,

-Smac

yes